Second game, new questions

[deadshane]

Ok, I see where how you came to your interpretation.

You've studied the incorrect example and worked out how to make it fit.

You seem to be paying way more attention to the example than the actual rules though.

Yea...that's probably the problem. I wish the errata specifically stated to IGNORE the example on page 8. It doesnt do that.

Thanks for reading my posts and seeing where I was coming from. Like I said...my gaming group agrees that this is the interpretation. W/o being exposed to THIS discussion of course. I may be in for another "fight" during my next local gaming session.

 

[Finlos]

I'm not misreading the example on page 8 at all....unless myself AND my entire gaming group are illiterate.

I've asked for it repeatadly where in the Forums that Matt has said that the example for damage given on page 8 is incorrect...as he is the game designer, I could take that more like gospel if not an "official" ruling. (since a forum post isnt "published" and doesnt count as official FAQ/Errata)

....so far in this thread noone has directed me anywhere where I can see it. Also, Matt hasnt come in to say otherwise.

Here you are, 2nd post on the page. Also, why are you treating both the Critical Score rating and the Extra Damage rating as further damage to your ships? The Critical Score rating is only an indication of how severe the critical done to the ship is and nothing more.

edit: I had a similar discussion with a friend earlier. Pay attention to words that are capitalized, they're the important terms

 

[deadshane]

Thank you for the link!

The reason I was doing it is because the example on page 8 essentially tells you to do exactly that.


EDIT: Hmmm, well, the link is just stating exactly what the FAQ did. Which is fine. But the entire issue would still be cleaner by simply saying "Ignore the example on page 8". All the faq says is that the table is correct.

My interpretation above still could stand, but it's possible that it's over analysation. Ignoring the example and just reading the rule...it seems so.

I'll let this one go at this point and just play it the way you guys are saying. Like I said, it makes more sense to me as well.

Now that someone saw my error and how I came to the conclusion, I'm certain I got my point across.

 

[Finlos]

From page 8, "Consult the location and it's Critical Score and apply A)* the Extra Damage and B)* Effects listed for that Critical Score and all others below it to the ship immediately."

I don't envy the discussion you're going to have with your group however. The capitalized word are key.

*the added listing is mine

 

[tneva82]

Thank you for the link!

The reason I was doing it is because the example on page 8 essentially tells you to do exactly that.

Well. It's example. Example is just that. Example. It's not rules.

Use only the rule parts. Examples don't overwrite rules so if the rules don't say you add the critical score then the example part of that can be ignored. Because example's ain't rules.

 

[deadshane]

Thank you for the link!

The reason I was doing it is because the example on page 8 essentially tells you to do exactly that.

Well. It's example. Example is just that. Example. It's not rules.

Use only the rule parts. Examples don't overwrite rules so if the rules don't say you add the critical score then the example part of that can be ignored. Because example's ain't rules.

You really havent followed this discussion at all, have you?

at any rate...thanks. :roll:

 

[tneva82]

Thank you for the link!

The reason I was doing it is because the example on page 8 essentially tells you to do exactly that.

Well. It's example. Example is just that. Example. It's not rules.

Use only the rule parts. Examples don't overwrite rules so if the rules don't say you add the critical score then the example part of that can be ignored. Because example's ain't rules.

You really havent followed this discussion at all, have you?

at any rate...thanks. :roll:

I have. Went through whole thread at once before replying. Mighty lots of repetition of flawed example which should be ignored from the get-go when you realize the example doesn't follow rules.

You keep bringing up the one example. But that's useless because in the final analysis examples AREN'T RULES! It's EXAMPLE. That's all. When rules and examples conflict rules win by default.

To see how to play check the rules. Examples are just what name say. Also worth pointing out examples are last things updated AFTER rules are finished so it's pretty common something is forgotten to update after rules change...Which is another reason to simply ignore examples if they don't say same as the rules do. Like here.

When reading rulebook ALWAYS follow this rule: Follow rules, ignore examples if they conflict with rules.

Why you insist on bringing up example when examples have no bearing on actual rules? They don't introduce new rules. Ergo if there's something there that's not present in the rules examples are by default wrong. Like here.

 

[deadshane]

When reading rulebook ALWAYS follow this rule: Follow rules, ignore examples if they conflict with rules.

Ordinarily, within rulesets, examples will typically reflect the rules. That's why they're there...to SHOW you how rules work. Ignoring examples in wargame rulebooks will much of the time land you into trouble.

I've played many many different wargames over the years....this is the first time that a rules example led me astray.

Your quote above is interesting b/c in most cases it's terrible terrible advice when considering certain wargames with badly worded rules. I'm not saying that ACTA:SF is badly worded here btw, but it's a pretty huge error to include a totally incorrect example after such an important game mechanic.

At any rate, I understand at this point where my error was...I hardly feel that I'm at FAULT for following the example in the rulebook. As Greg Smith stated, I read the example and actually 'fit' it into the process. My entire gaming group pretty much did the same.

I'm sorry if my confusion and want/need to make sure that I'm getting it right according to the designers intent has caused any greif.

 

[tneva82]

Ordinarily, within rulesets, examples will typically reflect the rules. That's why they're there...to SHOW you how rules work. Ignoring examples in wargame rulebooks will much of the time land you into trouble.

I don't remember seeing that many rulebooks where at least one example isn't flawed. Which is where that rule comes from.

Thing is rules tend to get changed all the way until the dead line hits. Easy enough for example or two slipping in the editing process.

I've played many many different wargames over the years....this is the first time that a rules example led me astray.

You have only played chess with couple variants? Definitely not any of GW games. Or PP games. FOW. Nope. Couple historical games I have played don't fit either.

Frankly it's gotten to point where I just don't read examples. Easier to simply read the rules.

 

[Myrm]

When reading rulebook ALWAYS follow this rule: Follow rules, ignore examples if they conflict with rules.

Ordinarily, within rulesets, examples will typically reflect the rules.

Actually, while this is clearly the ideal, in practise in gaming rulebooks its one of the commonest sources of mistakes that I have found (having seen it both as a consumer and as a playtester). Usually as examples get written but forgotten about when the rule is later changed.

Sad but true - and it happens often enough that it does render the use of examples to see how things work much less helpful to me or anyone else as a reader.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Deadshane is right, examples should be reliable.

Other posters are also right in saying that they are the most common source of errors in rulebooks, be they for minis games or RPGs.

The problem comes is that examples are usually among the last things written. So far, so good. However, playtesting tends to continue right up until a day or two before the book goes to print, and it only takes one tiny little change to knock an example out of kilter and, sometimes, that change to an example is _not_ obvious. And of course, anyone who has become familiar with the rules (like the playtesters and writers) may 'skip' over an example that needs changing.

We forever strive, but it is a continual bugbear.

 

[lastbesthope]

The problem comes is that examples are usually among the last things written. So far, so good. However, playtesting tends to continue right up until a day or two before the book goes to print, and it only takes one tiny little change to knock an example out of kilter and, sometimes, that change to an example is _not_ obvious. And of course, anyone who has become familiar with the rules (like the playtesters and writers) may 'skip' over an example that needs changing.

Hence my focus on them in my recent spate of proofreading.

LBH